Dwindling research funds worry some in the medical community

After nearly a decade of increases, funding for biomedical research is beginning to decline in the United States, study findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicated.

Researchers conducted a comparison of financial trends from 1994 to 2003 and 2003 to 2007 using publicly available data from sources including the government, private investors and industry. After adjusting for inflation, they found that although total funding increased from $75.5 billion in 2003 to $101.1 billion in 2007, the compound annual growth rate decreased from 7.8% (1994-2003) to 3.4% (2003-2007).

“[A] modest increase in funding was not accompanied by an increase in approvals for drugs or devices,” the researchers wrote.

Furthermore, dollars from the two largest contributors — industry and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — decreased by 2%, from $90.2 billion in 2007 to $88.8 billion in 2008, they reported.

“The rate and cyclic nature of sponsorship affects researchers and institutions, because it influences career choice, selection of projects, building of laboratories and establishment of new programs,” the researchers wrote. “It makes them cautious and may portend a trend to favor incremental research rather than high-risk/high-reward avenues, which have particular value to refractory diseases and those of great clinical or public health impact.”

Since 1994, trends indicate growing investment in and development of devices and bioengineered drugs and less interest in conventional pharmaceuticals. Higher regulatory standards, longer and more expensive clinical trials, increased failure rates in preclinical trials, and less flexibility are some of the factors that may explain this shift, the researchers wrote.

“Bust-boom-bust” cycle

In an accompanying editorial, Thomas F. Boat, MD, of the University Of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio, called NIH funding trends “a bust-boom-bust” cycle, warning of potential negative consequences for academic research funding, “85% of which is granted by the NIH.”

Funding data for 2008 and 2009 will likely reflect further decreases as other funding sources including charity organizations and state and local governments were hit hard by economic crisis, according to Boat.

“New drugs, biologics and devices are needed to prevent and alleviate disease-related morbidity and extend the productive lives of individuals having a multitude of disorders for which there is no effective treatment,” Boat wrote. “Productivity of research aimed at improving these outcomes deserves ongoing emphasis. Balancing funding for investigative efforts across the entire spectrum of health care needs also deserves the highest level of attention.”

References:
Dorsey ER. JAMA. 2010;303:137-143.
Boat TF. JAMA. 2010;303: 170-171.